HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-03-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

South-East Drainage System

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:19): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Water a question about the South-East drainage network.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: As the minister, I assume, would be aware, the South-East drainage community panel report was released on 15 March. The panel, funded by valuable natural resource management dollars, was tasked with investigating the best way to pay for the future maintenance and operation of the 2,600 kilometres of drainage network, which supports agricultural productivity in the South-East and which provides water to wetlands and natural environments.

The government, which will so far only commit $2.2 million to the network, had hoped to use a regional-based tax to force landholders living in the South-East to meet the rest of the cost of this deteriorating government-owned asset and, as many of my colleagues would be aware, this is something that many of them, and certainly Family First, did not, could not and would not support. The minister accused me of certain things when I said that it was in the public interest and for the public good that the government, not the farmers, pay for the maintenance.

The good news from the community panel report is that, after much deliberation, the panel, unanimously I understand, has concluded and declared that, because the whole of the state (in other words, for the public good) benefits from the South-East drainage network through food production, environmental conservation, industry and tourism, and that, because this is one of the state's biggest assets, the state government should be the one to pay for it, and much more than the $2.2 million that it is currently willing to put in.

In fact, the panel went further and has recommended that funding be increased and set at the OECD industry standard, which is 3 per cent of capital value. With that explanation, my questions to the minister are:

1. Will the government, given that it wanted to put up the independent umpire panel, and did so, now adhere to the determination of the community panel and finally commit the necessary funds for the ongoing maintenance and operation of the South-East drainage network?

2. Will the government now abandon the notion of charging a regional-based tax on South-East farmers and landholders?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (15:22): I thank the honourable member for his most important, if somewhat predictable, question. The agricultural productivity of a significant portion of the South-East national resource management region is supported by an extensive drainage network, which includes more than 2,500 kilometres of public and private drains, floodways and associated infrastructure. This drainage infrastructure assists in addressing agricultural flooding across the relatively flat topography of the South-East region and plays a key role in ameliorating dry land salinity in the Upper South-East.

The drainage network is currently managed and operated by the South-Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board, which operates under the South-Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Act 1992. The board manages the drainage network to address the issues of flooding and dryland salinity and to meet the environmental water requirements of wetlands that are connected to the drainage network. I am continuing to listen to local advice on drainage matters, as members would expect I would.

This motivation is central to the South-East drainage network community's panel initiative, which allows community members to investigate funding models for the ongoing maintenance and operation of the South-East drainage network. The community panel undertook its deliberations over three weekends, and I was pleased to attend the first meeting at Naracoorte on 31 January. The second meeting was held on 21 and 22 February in Mount Gambier, and the final weekend of deliberation was held recently on 14 and 15 March 2015.

The question that the panel had been asked to address is: how should we pay for maintaining our largest local infrastructure asset, the South-East drainage network? The state government will commit $2.2 million per annum. Do we want to spend more than that and, if so, how do we fairly share this cost across the region? This community panel has released its recommendations, which I understand are now publicly available at www.naturalresources.sa.gov.au/southeast. I am down to meet with the panel on 28 March to discuss its recommendations.

That is what I told the panel I would do at the commencement of our deliberations. I think it is only appropriate that I respond to them before I do the Hon. Mr Brokenshire and this chamber the courtesy and honour of giving them the benefit of my wisdom. The panel will present its recommendations through the South East NRM Board to me as Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, and I have undertaken to table a copy of the recommendations and government's response in parliament.

But we shouldn't let pass the absolute hypocrisy of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire in this situation. It was the Hon. Mr Brokenshire who decided, in his infinite wisdom, to support a Liberal proposition to remove the River Murray levy from those ratepayers in the South-East of the state, the rationale being that they had no benefits from the continued health of the River Murray—they're not absolutely connected to the pipe. But they come in here with an argument that says, 'Let's not worry about that argument; let's throw consistency out the window.' But the whole state is responsible for the benefits that come out of the South-East drainage system, even though the whole state is not directly connected to the South-East drainage system.

Here we have Mr Brokenshire in his usual hypocritical manner entertaining two contradictory points of view at exactly the same time, depending on who he is talking to. That is the level of the politics of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. He comes in here, in this place, holding two contradictory positions at the same time and tries to portray himself as this virtuous man for doing that.

The contradictions in terms are huge, and he does not even take into consideration that a couple of the councils in the South-East use the South-East drainage network to dump all of their waste—all of their road, stormwater waste—into those drains and they pay absolutely nothing; absolutely nothing for the upkeep of the drainage system. They utilise it for the benefits of their ratepayers, but they contribute nothing—not a zack—to the maintenance of the drainage system.

We have the Hon. Mr Brokenshire in here, trotting in as he is wont, with two contradictory positions and saying, 'I'm a virtuous man because I can hold two different positions depending on who I'm talking to at this point of time.' You need to bell that cat and let everybody know this man is a hypocrite.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order, Mr President. I do believe that the minister has called you a 'hypocrite'. Given that he is meant to address his remarks to the Chair, he might want to clarify that.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: You are not a hypocrite, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: True.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT